My Father's business

I did not understand why my mom was so angry? She had worked so hard to raise me to be a zealous follower of Jesus, and that I was.

I was studying my Bible far more than any of my school books. I was leading in my church youth group. I was leading Bible studies in my school, writings articles about my faith for the school paper, and bringing the good news of Jesus to just about anyone who would listen.

So when I rolled in at 1:30 am, I could not grasp her indignation? "Where have you been!?!"

"We were at the Ram's horn and I was witnessing to them about Jesus. How can you be mad at me? I was about my Father's business."

She claims I said that last part. I doubt it, but that was certainly the tone. I felt that her rebuke was a sign that she did not care as much about the Jesus as I did.

What she should have done, I guess, is turn to Luke 2 where Jesus speaks those words. Because right after he says that, we are told that he obeyed his parents. If God could humble himself to obey his mom and dad, I certainly should have too.

In fact, I think I'm going to go home and show this to my kids right now.

An Organization to Help Soldiers

Shannon shared an article with me that I thought I would pass along: More War Stories from Christian Soldiers

A page of a lot of useful information on Christians against war is here.

Thomas Hardy's The Man He Killed

Had he and I but met
By some old ancient inn,
We should have sat us down to wet
Right many a nipperkin!

But ranged as infantry,
And staring face to face,
I shot at him and he at me,
And killed him in his place.

I shot him dead because—
Because he was my foe,
Just so: my foe of course he was;
That’s clear enough; although

He thought he’d ‘list, perhaps,
Off-hand like—just as I—
Was out of work—had sold his traps—
No other reason why.

Yes; quaint and curious war is!
You shoot a fellow down
You’d treat, if met where any bar is,
Or help to half a crown.

Mark Twain's War Prayer

It was a time of great and exalting excitement. The country was up in arms, the war was on, in every breast burned the holy fire of patriotism; the drums were beating, the bands playing, the toy pistols popping, the bunched firecrackers hissing and spluttering; on every hand and far down the receding and fading spread of roofs and balconies a fluttering wilderness of flags flashed in the sun; daily the young volunteers marched down the wide avenue gay and fine in their new uniforms, the proud fathers and mothers and sisters and sweethearts cheering them with voices choked with happy emotion as they swung by; nightly the packed mass meetings listened, panting, to patriot oratory which stirred the deepest deeps of their hearts, and which they interrupted at briefest intervals with cyclones of applause, the tears running down their cheeks the while; in the churches the pastors preached devotion to flag and country, and invoked the God of Battles beseeching His aid in our good cause in outpourings of fervid eloquence which moved every listener. It was indeed a glad and gracious time, and the half dozen rash spirits that ventured to disapprove of the war and cast a doubt upon its righteousness straightway got such a stern and angry warning that for their personal safety's sake they quickly shrank out of sight and offended no more in that way.

Sunday morning came -- next day the battalions would leave for the front; the church was filled; the volunteers were there, their young faces alight with martial dreams -- visions of the stern advance, the gathering momentum, the rushing charge, the flashing sabers, the flight of the foe, the tumult, the enveloping smoke, the fierce pursuit, the surrender! Then home from the war, bronzed heroes, welcomed, adored, submerged in golden seas of glory! With the volunteers sat their dear ones, proud, happy, and envied by the neighbors and friends who had no sons and brothers to send forth to the field of honor, there to win for the flag, or, failing, die the noblest of noble deaths. The service proceeded; a war chapter from the Old Testament was read; the first prayer was said; it was followed by an organ burst that shook the building, and with one impulse the house rose, with glowing eyes and beating hearts, and poured out that tremendous invocation

*God the all-terrible! Thou who ordainest! Thunder thy clarion and lightning thy sword!*

Then came the "long" prayer. None could remember the like of it for passionate pleading and moving and beautiful language. The burden of its supplication was, that an ever-merciful and benignant Father of us all would watch over our noble young soldiers, and aid, comfort, and encourage them in their patriotic work; bless them, shield them in the day of battle and the hour of peril, bear them in His mighty hand, make them strong and confident, invincible in the bloody onset; help them to crush the foe, grant to them and to their flag and country imperishable honor and glory --

An aged stranger entered and moved with slow and noiseless step up the main aisle, his eyes fixed upon the minister, his long body clothed in a robe that reached to his feet, his head bare, his white hair descending in a frothy cataract to his shoulders, his seamy face unnaturally pale, pale even to ghastliness. With all eyes following him and wondering, he made his silent way; without pausing, he ascended to the preacher's side and stood there waiting. With shut lids the preacher, unconscious of his presence, continued with his moving prayer, and at last finished it with the words, uttered in fervent appeal, "Bless our arms, grant us the victory, O Lord our God, Father and Protector of our land and flag!"

The stranger touched his arm, motioned him to step aside -- which the startled minister did -- and took his place. During some moments he surveyed the spellbound audience with solemn eyes, in which burned an uncanny light; then in a deep voice he said:

"I come from the Throne -- bearing a message from Almighty God!" The words smote the house with a shock; if the stranger perceived it he gave no attention. "He has heard the prayer of His servant your shepherd, and will grant it if such shall be your desire after I, His messenger, shall have explained to you its import -- that is to say, its full import. For it is like unto many of the prayers of men, in that it asks for more than he who utters it is aware of -- except he pause and think.

"God's servant and yours has prayed his prayer. Has he paused and taken thought? Is it one prayer? No, it is two -- one uttered, the other not. Both have reached the ear of Him Who heareth all supplications, the spoken and the unspoken. Ponder this -- keep it in mind. If you would beseech a blessing upon yourself, beware! lest without intent you invoke a curse upon a neighbor at the same time. If you pray for the blessing of rain upon your crop which needs it, by that act you are possibly praying for a curse upon some neighbor's crop which may not need rain and can be injured by it.

"You have heard your servant's prayer -- the uttered part of it. I am commissioned of God to put into words the other part of it -- that part which the pastor -- and also you in your hearts -- fervently prayed silently. And ignorantly and unthinkingly? God grant that it was so! You heard these words: 'Grant us the victory, O Lord our God!' That is sufficient. the *whole* of the uttered prayer is compact into those pregnant words. Elaborations were not necessary. When you have prayed for victory you have prayed for many unmentioned results which follow victory--*must* follow it, cannot help but follow it. Upon the listening spirit of God fell also the unspoken part of the prayer. He commandeth me to put it into words. Listen!

"O Lord our Father, our young patriots, idols of our hearts, go forth to battle -- be Thou near them! With them -- in spirit -- we also go forth from the sweet peace of our beloved firesides to smite the foe. O Lord our God, help us to tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it -- for our sakes who adore Thee, Lord, blast their hopes, blight their lives, protract their bitter pilgrimage, make heavy their steps, water their way with their tears, stain the white snow with the blood of their wounded feet! We ask it, in the spirit of love, of Him Who is the Source of Love, and Who is the ever-faithful refuge and friend of all that are sore beset and seek His aid with humble and contrite hearts. Amen.

(*After a pause.*) "Ye have prayed it; if ye still desire it, speak! The messenger of the Most High waits!"

It was believed afterward that the man was a lunatic, because there was no sense in what he said.

The Dilemma with War

An American preacher during WWI gave a passionate sermon in which he said,

“ It is God who has summoned us to this war. It is his war we are fighting...the greatest in history—the holiest. It is in the profoundest and truest sense a Holy War....Yes, it is Christ, the king of Righteousness, who calls us to grapple in deadly strife with this unholy and blasphemous power [Germany].”1

The dilemma with a statement such as this is that “inscribed on the belts and helmets of the men fighting for this 'unholy and blasphemous power' was the slogan, 'Gott mit uns' (God [be] with us), and their greatest wartime motto, inscribed on scores of monuments to their dead, to be covered by the ruins of a second World War was, 'Fuer Gott und Vaterland' (for God and country). On whose side was God?”2

The problem with war is that every side belives they are on the morally righteous side. Albert Keim and Grant Stoltzfus, two prominent CO historians, wrote:

“This view [just war]...is today the essence of the war ethic of most Christian groups. Implicitly, of course, it contains an alternative to war; if the war to be waged is an unjust war, the Christian alternative is not to participate. Unfortunately very few Christians through the centuries have rejected war on the grounds that it was unjust. Virtually all wars have been 'just' wars.”3

WWI, in the end, had no righteous winner. Americans were not quick to stand up and declare the war that they recently fought in as a just war although it was sold to them as such. Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes, a historian at the time from Columbia University, noted that not one of the lofty reasons for entering the first world war were achieved. Americans had been sold a basket of lofty ideals that more resembled deception after the war. Prior to WWII, Barnes wrote:

“We are all familiar enough with the myths that we believed in the first war. We were taught that our intervention was the only thing that could prevent Germany from conquering the world. We were informed that we were saving the world from further carnage and the rule of brute force. Finally, we were led to believe that we were fighting for noble ideals which would set up a new era in human civilization. On every point our experience in the first World War proved a tragic disappointment and disillusionment...Be entering the first World War we did not save the world. We only made possible the smashing victory of the Allies which produced the fatal peace treaties...Not a single major ideal of wartime was realized.”4

****

1 Quoted in Mennonite General Conference, Peace Problems Committee, The Churches and War, (Scottdale, PA: Mennonite Publishing House, 1956), 16.

2 Mennonite General Conference, Peace Problems Committee, The Churches and War, (Scottdale, Pa: Mennonite Publishing House, 1956), 16.

3 Albert Keim and Grant Stoltzfus, The Politics of Conscience, (Scottdale, Pa: Herald Press, 1988), 19.

4 Dr. Harry Elmer Barnes in Common Sense Neutrality, ed, Paul Comly French ( New York: Hastings House, 1939), 14-15.

Highway of Prayer

From an article on CNN.com:

If you turn to the Bible -- Isaiah Chapter 35, Verse 8 -- you will see a passage that in part says, "A highway shall be there, and a road, and it shall be called the Highway of Holiness."

Now, is it possible that this "highway" mentioned in Chapter 35 is actually Interstate 35 that runs through six U.S. states, from southern Texas to northern Minnesota? Some Christians have faith that is indeed the case. Churchgoers in all six states recently finished 35 days of praying alongside Interstate 35, but the prayers are still continuing.

Some of the faithful believe that in order to fulfill the prophecy of I-35 being the "holy" highway, it needs some intensive prayer first. So we watched as about 25 fervent and enthusiastic Christians prayed on the interstate's shoulder in Dallas.

Let me preface what I am about to write with the following:

I believe in the power of prayer.
I believe in the need for us to pray.
I believe the Bible can speak to us even today.
I believe Christians should be public with their faiths.
I believe Christians should work to enact change in the world.

With those statements in place, let me continue. Stories like this irk me to no end. Many reasons could be cited, but for the most part my frustration centers around the effect of these sorts of actions. I think this whole thing does little more than mar the reputations of Christians and the Church. The world looks and things, “What a bunch of imbeciles.” Even the writer said “...most people, the religious and the non-religious alike, don't buy any of this...”.

Does this highway and its many “adult businesses” need prayer for renewal and repentance? Of course. But to cloak it in some specific fulfillment of this ancient text smacks of ignorance in regard to interpreting the Bible. I don’t want to sound like one of those arrogant scholars or 2nd year undergraduate students, but I get so tired of what is, in my opinion, terrible exegesis. The writer of Isaiah 35 was not thinking of a concrete highway for combustible engine vehicles built some 2500 years later. Rather, the writer used specific imagery to depict restoration and a fulfillment of God’s promises and plan for this world. More than likely s/he envisioned a restored Israel returned to its status as a world power and influence. Thus it seems ludicrous to appropriate this text in this way.

So what am I to do with such stories? What am I to do when church members bring such things to my attention and say, “Isn’t this great? Christians living out their faiths.” What am I to do when other Christians are embarrassing the rest of us? Or am I being overly critical?

diakonomics

di-a-ko-nom-ics: /noun/

1. The science that deals with the costs and benefits of following Jesus.

[Origin: Shannon just read part of Freakonomics, and spun off that idea.]

Matthew 13:44-46

"The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field. When a man found it, he hid it again, and then in his joy went and sold all he had and bought that field.

"Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant looking for fine pearls. When he found one of great value, he went away and sold everything he had and bought it.

The way Jesus puts it, only a fool would skip the opportunity to surrender everything he has to for the sake of Jesus. The two men in Jesus' stories are not painted as an extremist wackos, but as savvy entrepreneurs.

Sound diakonomics calls for imbalance. The one who gains the world and loses the treasure that is life with Jesus, profits nothing. Conversely, the one who loses everything, yet gains life with Christ, profits beyond imagination.

Therefore the gaining or losing of cash, cable, cars, comfort, house, health, dreams, desires, respect, reputation, admiration, titles, brother, sister, father, mother, or even children cannot be gauge of diakonomics. They cannot be the gauge for the life well-lived.

In diakonomics, it's not about you. It's all about life together with other disciples in service to our King. The gaining and losing are irrelevant.

The Molokans

I recently discovered a great story in my research on conscientious objectors. The Molokans are a group of people who moved to America prior to WWI to escape religious persecution in Russia. The sad thing is that they faced religious persecution in America. I found their story very inspirational. Here is an excerpt on them:

The religious sectarians best loved by their fellow-objectors in Fort Leavenworth Military Prison were the Molokans. They came to this country from Russia on the understanding that here they would be exempt from military service. They formed their own isolated colony in Arizona and kept their own customs. They are fine farmers and have succeeded in making the desert blossom as a rose. It is part of their creed to abstain from all animal foods. They believe that their conduct is guided by the Holy Spirit, and they are sometimes called "Holy Jumpers" because of certain physical manifestations of what they consider the inspiration of the Spirit.

Some months before America declared war the Holy Spirit appeared to them in a dream and warned them the day was near when they would be conscripted. Furthermore the Spirit directed that they must destroy even the shotguns which they had been using to keep off the blackbirds. The following day in the public square they broke their guns and burned them. Several days before registration the Spirit again came to them promising them that Christ would defend them if only they would not submit to the military. On registration day thirty-four of them held religious services in front of the registration offices at Glendale, Arizona. After they had completed their worship they entered the office and quietly informed the chairman that they would not register and gave reasons for it. Some of the Molokans came all the way to Washington to see the President. Through Mr. Tumulty they were assured that they would not be molested. Nevertheless thirty-four were sentenced to civil prison for refusal to register--a frefusal in which they persisted though most of them as married men were entitled to delayed classification. Six of them finally reached the military prison at Fort Leavenworth. There they won an affectionate regard from their fellow-objectors which reflects honor not only on them but on their sect.

"While many religious fellows," writes one of the objectors, "argued and wrangled and condemned one another to hell fire the Molokans quietly read their Bibles, walked up and down, or sang their songs. If direct questions were put to them with the purpose of drawing out their condemnation of certain conscientious objectors' or soldiers' points of view, they always answered with some kind and sympathetic remark, always maintaining their own faith throughout. They joined wholeheartedly in games, they seemed to understand the Russian situation, and showed a grasp of economic ills in the United States." In fact, the Molokans seemed to have been radically minded. "They said that in Russia their teachers had often been imprisoned with revolutionaries and so learned much of the revolutionary economics, which they thought in accord with Christianity."

An even more striking tribute to these men comes from a socialist objector of Jewish birth who had no love for religion.

"During our association with the Molokans, we found them very affable and by no means obtuse. I used to take great delight in watching them perform their religious ceremonies. Six sturdy, bearded, dignified and sincere men, they would form a circle, and with their arms folded and eyes raised to heaven, they said their evening prayers. Even those of us who profess no religious belief would remain quiet and watch with respect while the Molokans conducted their religious services.

"The evening prior to their release, we persuaded them to sing their hymns as a sort of farewell. This time it seemed to me they sang with even more fervor and more ardor than ever before. While watching them, I could not help thinking of the sufferings these men had endured, and how in the face of all persecution they remained true to their principles. These men being strict vegetarians, their main sustenance for a period of more than eight months was corn flakes and milk. I often wondered how they were able to retain their health on this diet. In perplexity I questioned Kornivaloff about this one day. 'Oh,' he said, 'all right for me. Nobody else can do this (pointing to heaven) except if they have faith.' Despite this one-sided diet and their long incarceration, they were always happy, and diffused cheerfulness to all with whom they came in contact. They would say: 'Well, by and by, maybe everything come all right.'

"They took a keen interest in our elementary English and arithmetic classes, and, unlike a good many other Christians, they were eager to learn about this world. Kulikoff, just before he left, said facetiously they may set aside a day each year in commemoration of their imprisonment. This day he said, 'We'll celebrate by feasting on corn flakes and milk!'

"By way of a send-off we gave them three rousing cheers, which shook the foundations of the Disciplinary Barracks. For the remainder of the day we were a rather doleful lot...But when these men were released, we felt that for once the government had discharged those who deserved it most."

Quoted in Norman Thomas, Conscientious Objector in America, (New York: B.W. Huebsch, 1925), 50-54.

The Kingdom = the Prosperity Gospel?

I keep seeing Joel Olstein’s name come to the forefront. With the arrival of his new book Become a Better You (the follow up to Your Best Life Now), Olstein has been making the rounds on the TV circuit. There was a short “60 Minutes” piece on him as well that described the “prosperity gospel” that he propagates in his Mega Church. For those who are unaware of the content of this message, it basically states that God wants to pour out favor through prosperity, particularly financial prosperity, and success in business or personal life.

As Olstein spoke to the interviewer, he mentioned the sorts of things that bring him great fulfillment and that should make detractors lay off. He cited restored relationships in marriages, among friends, between family members, and even with strangers. He also talked about a life of peace that could be sustained in this joy-draining existence we call life. And as I listened, if I could set aside who he is and how I feel about the “health and wealth” gospel, I could almost hear the message of the Kingdom. The Kingdom was instituted to initiate restoration between humanity and God. As God rules and reigns in our lives and the lives of others, the natural result has to be restoration. This sort of better life or “full life” as Jesus calls it (John 10:10) is the consequence of the world changing.

But this focus on restored relationships is where the similarities end. Little discussion of God exists in this equation. Olstein turns into little more than a pop psychologist wrapped in loose references to the Bible rather than a minister/ambassador of reconciliation (2 Corinthians 5). In the interview, Olstein does not want to confront his audience with the bible and beat people over the head with it. Neither do I, yet when one uses the platform of Christianity to convey one’s message, the hearer also has expectations about the source of the message.

In addition, Olstein and I would define a “full life” much differently. Often you will hear preachers who espouse this view return to God wanting to bless you monetarily – a new job, promotion, increase in wealth, etc. They say that these blessings have been ordained for you since the creation of the world. The only prerequisite is that you believe. Your faith (or lack of faith) determines the level of blessedness you will experience. As I examine the Bible, I just don’t see this sort of theology as the predominate message about faith.

I see peace and blessedness as being integral to the kingdom. But this sort of peace and blessedness cannot be defined with a dollar value. This sort of peace surpasses understanding. This sort of blessedness results in a reversal of social morays and expectations as all people are treated with dignity and worth, not as second-class citizens. The full life that God desires of us is to live up to the potential with which he created us – to love God and one another. There may not be a new car, job, house, or boat in your future, but as the kingdom comes the future will hold a better life.

“For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” Romans 14:17

Is Obama's church racist?

You have probably received one. The email rumor attacks on Barak Obama are everywhere.

“He is a smoker.”
“He is secretly a radical Muslim with ties to terrorism.”
“He hates America and refuses to salute the flag.”

When someone first approached me with these rumors, I asked why Hillary Clinton was not hammering him on these things. She would easily win, and she was really struggling at the time.

To others, I have referred them to snopes.com and have urged them not to be used as a conduit in schemes to perpetuate falsehood. I told them, “There may be many reasons not to vote for Obama, but most of this stuff is just false.”

Most of these accusations are easily disproved with video of him leading the Senate in the pledge of allegiance or what have you.

One that is a bit trickier is the accusation that Obama belongs to a racist church. His church is the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. On their website, the church is described as “unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian.” Two of their ten vision points express a commitment to Africa and to the education of “African people in diaspora”.

Is this racism? If Hillary Clinton belonged to a church that was unashamedly white and committed to the education of white people, we would certainly say it is racist. So, yes, I suppose it is racist in that it holds race is a primary qualifier for whom they seek to serve.

The next question would be; is it wrong? We have all been taught that racism is wrong. So much so, that it may be hard to examine the question further. So, please allow me to rephrase the question. Is it loving?

Unlike other forms of racism which are used to keep a particular race down, this form is used to pick a particular race up.

In this case, being for one group does not equate to being against others. From all reports of people who have had actual contact with the church, they do not treat people of other races poorly. They embrace everybody.

So, though it is technically racist, I do not think it is entirely wrong.

But one more point: I think it has some terrible (though unintended) consequences. Far too many people will see those values as exclusionary. Far too few will be able to navigate the subtle differences in the forms of racism.

If TUCC is committed to reconciliation, as their website reports, they should consider the feelings of white people. Few will want to reconcile with them if they feel they are being discriminated against because of the color of their skin.

The Path of Jesus

I have heard sin described as a target in which we aim for the bullseye and anything less than a perfect hit is a sin. Legalism likes to choose certain areas of the target to avoid rather than to aim for the bullseye. Liberalism likes to congratulate people just for attempting to shoot. I think neither analogy holds up for long.

I like to view my spiritual journey more as a path. A path is a trail that is guiding us somewhere. We try to stay on the path because we know it is usually safer and it is the way to get to where we want to go. Sometimes we might stray off the path because we see a promising view or an alluring flower. Most times our straying does not impact us much as we can just hop right back on the path. Other times, we might sprain an ankle, break a leg, get lost, or even fall to our death. It is dangerous off the path, but the path is always there to get back to.

The path is no cakewalk in itself. It traverses through valleys and mountains, flower gardens and desolated wastelands. At some points it narrows so much that it seems inevitable to get some scrapes and bruises while remaining on the path. Some spots of the path are unprotected and bandits wait to attack travellers. At times it seems like it completely disappears, and we struggle to know where to go. Other times it is as broad as the eye can see and we can go practically anywhere.

"If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross and follow me." The path is more about following Jesus than it is about following the path itself. The Jesus path might stray from the well-worn path at times, but wherever Jesus went there is a path that has been followed by great people of faith for almost 2000 years. It will be visible; we just have to look hard enough to find it.

The Building of Faith

“Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell with a great crash.” Matthew 7:24-27

I posed the question last week, “Why do you believe in God?” And to sum up, often tangible reasons do not exist. But we believe and we try to grow in our faiths through a variety of methods. But as I considered “spiritual growth” I came up with the following thought – what is the foundation? Upon what do we grow/build our faiths? 1 Corinthians 3:11 states, “For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ.” If Christ is the foundation, what exactly is it about Christ that established that base? Is it proper doctrine and statements of faith? Is the proper foundation orthodoxy about God? I wonder, especially when you consider many if not most Christians come to faith without a proper understanding of Christ.

So, let me throw something out there and see where it lands. Tell me if you disagree.

Let me use building imagery to portray my thoughts. Imagine a life of faith as house. Houses have foundations, infrastructure, walls, decorations, etc. Now if each aspect of the house represents an element of faith then where do doctrine, theology, experience, revelation, service, sacrifice, etc., line up?

I found this question difficult to answer. Perhaps the question is not so easily given voice, or perhaps the frustration is caused by a clashing of the modern and post-modern mindset. Either way, I came to the following conclusion:

Doctrine is not the foundation of faith. Theology bolsters the framework of faith and provides support as the building of faith reaches up to God. But the foundation of faith resides not in logic but in experience. One cannot begin a building of faith unless one lays the groundwork through an encounter with God. When it comes down to it, faith cannot really be shared because experience establishes faith.

Let me extend the building metaphor. When a house is completed in all its splendor, what do the owners show off? Do they take you downstairs to the unfinished basement so you can see the concrete slab upon which the house is built? No. Instead the owner will display the rooms, beautifully painted, decorated, and arranged. And just as no one when showing a house shows the foundation, we cannot show people our experience. We can describe it. We can cling to it and put our hope in it. But we can not show it and we definitely cannot give it to someone else. The foundation is integral to our building and cannot be separated from the structure.

And just as a poured foundation is of little value if not built upon, if we remain at the foundation of experience without building upon it our faith is of little value as well. This is where doctrine and theology come in. Ideally we have put time into finishing the building and making it pleasing to look at. Then we can share the walls of the building of faith – beautifully adorned with the paint of theology and the molding of doctrine. No doubt some will not agree with our colors and choices. In the same way everyone will not always agree with our doctrine and practice. But that is the beauty of not living in carbon copy houses. Each house displays its own unique personality and experience with the builder (whom we would call God).

May we build upon the foundation of our experience with our God and Savior.

Federal Sales Tax

Before I begin, some recommended reading about legalized gambling from Emo Phillips.

A large part of Mike Huckabee's platform is his plan to replace the income tax with a 23% sales tax. I've been intrigued by this idea ever since I heard Alan Keyes propose them back in 2000.

I like that it moves the tax punishment from earning money to spending money. This does more to promote moral living. A person, to some degree, would be able to choose whether to be taxed a lot or a little. Buy less stuff, pay less in taxes.

The hope is that the uber-wealthy, billionaire types would not be able to dodge their share. As it is, there are so many shelters and loopholes that they avoid tax on millions of dollars of income each year.

If that would work, it would be great. But I have my doubts. Wealthy people don't get wealthy by giving their money away. They get wealthy because they are exceptionally good at getting and keeping money. They will find ways to avoid paying tens of millions of dollars in sales tax. They could come up with complicated swapping methods. They could find ways to smuggle goods from across borders. They could turn to the black market. They can use their money to get law makers to create new loop holes. They're shrewd, they're powerful, and they don't want to pay taxes.

Even if you could somehow get our bought-and-paid-for house and Senate to pass this law, I doubt it would be so airtight that these guys would throw up their hands and forfeit their share.

A larger concern I have is how this tax would effect the nation's poor. How would those who do not make enough to get taxed handle a price jump of 23%?

I think of some elderly people I know who do not make enough in retirement to even have to file with the IRS, who now would have to make their few dollars stretch even further.

I still think the idea is intriguing, but I would like to hear how these concerns would be addressed.

Having an answer for those who ask

Why do you believe in God?

In my estimation this question gets answered poorly in our Christianized and religious society. Most Americans grow up in the church or grow up surrounded by the assumption that God exists. After all, we see “God bless America” on bumper stickers, “In God we trust” on our money, and hear “One nation under God” in our pledge. As a result, it seems that most people do not debate the existence of God and instead reserve their arguments to the nature of God or which God seems most likely to be Creator and this question goes unanswered.

And yet, the answer to this question seems pretty fundamental to faith and is more complex than simply assenting to the existence of a deity. When most people ask this question I think what they mean is, “Why do you feel the need to believe in a Savior, specifically Jesus? Why do believe in and follow the expectations of organized religion (specifically Christianity)?”

It is an interesting question or even series of questions, which calls for reflection and consideration. Too often the answer turns into an exercise in apologetics. Christians use logic (often twisted logic or ignoring other aspects of logic) to prove the existence of God. However, I do not believe that God can be proven empirically. Even the exercise of reducing God to an equation or a syllogism diminishes God and makes me not want to believe in such a God. In addition, I have found that taking a hard line in the Big Bang vs. Creationism or Evolution vs. Intelligent Design debate yields very little fruit as the use of science seems stretched on both ends and the use of the Bible as a scientific textbook ignores the original intent.

I also hear Christians cite Romans 1 which states that God has been revealing God’s power and nature since the beginning of time. So I ask, “In what specific ways has God accomplished this revelation?” It would be nice to just point to a sunrise, rainbow, newborn baby, or other act of creation to convince people of God. But such proofs only serve to bolster the faiths of those who already believe. It would be nice to use the Bible as proof, but to those who don’t agree on the authority of the Bible, the evidence is just based upon made up stories. It would be nice to point to providential history as proof, but what you and I call God’s hand/will others might attribute to coincidence or manipulating facts by Christians.

So I am left with the question(s) - Why do I believe in God? Why do I try to live a disciple’s life? Why do I conform to the expectations of a man made religious system (denominationalism)? Is there some proof beyond a shadow of a doubt? If so, why don’t I convince others with that proof?

I don’t know that I have a good answer to the question. When it comes down to it, God is not supposed to be proven, but rather experienced and enjoyed. God is not an equation to be solved but a Deity with which to wrestle. Why do I believe? Because I have wrestled. Because I have experienced. Because I have tasted and have seen that God is good.

So why do you believe in God?

Christmas Revolution

The Caroland family is coming off the busiest, toughest Christmas season to date. It was too much. Our kids are still recovering from the relentless celebrating.

There is so much that just is not good for kids about Christmas. There is too much sugar, too much stimulation, too much stuff, too many activities and festivities, and too little rest. The expectations are placed too high, or at least misplaced. Therefore, the inevitable disappointment brings them too low.

I'd like to say that emphasizing Christ's birth solves the problem, but practically speaking, it only adds to pressure with more expectations and things to do.

We try hard as parents to provide our children with a special Christmas experience, but result is too often worn-down and sick children who crack at the drop of the hat. Then we are frustrated that they are acting spoiled and ungrateful. But really, what should we expect after all of that? Are we the models of joy and contentment come December 27th?

So, I have come up with a few ways to turn that around. Some of these things have been field tested by us. The others will be next year, Lord willing.

1. Have yourself a very little Christmas- I know, "Good luck with that." There are too many expectations and responsibilities placed on you by family, schools, church, neighbors and friends. However, part of being a healthy responsible adult is learning to say 'no'. And your kids need you to do that.

Can Christmas be meaningful for you and your family if you skip out on some ceremonies even if they are part of your tradition? Yes, in fact, it may be more more meaningful if they are given rest and time to digest it all.

And the stuff. It's fun for us to buy stuff for our kids. It's fun to watch them open things. But there is a principle I have observed. The more stuff they get, the less they can enjoy any of it. It's overwhelming. Things they would have loved any other time of the year get lost in the pile.

Sam suggested three presents be the number. That's what Jesus got, after all. I'm not sure what to do about the presents from everyone else, though.

2. Teach them to let go- Before Christmas and birthdays, we have the kids go through their toys and fill up a garbage bag to be given away. We donate them to Goodwill or some other place. We even encourage them to give away toys they like. In this way, toys lose the grip they have on their hearts a little, they learn to be concerned for others, and we have less things to care for. This has worked well for us.

3. Share the thrill of impact giving- Our kids already like giving. Hannah could not wait for her mom to see that porcelain angel she got her from the dollar store. And that's good.

But anyone who has been used by God to fill a need knows how much more exciting that is than knocking down a Christmas list filled with people have all they need.

Next year, Hannah and Eli (if he is mature enough by then) will be choosing a way to give something to those nothing. Perhaps some livestock or something like that.

I'd love your suggestions while it is fresh in your mind.